Abstract. The national nuclear waste management programs of Germany
and the United States of America currently both find themselves at critical
junctures. The US government is reviving its efforts for consent-based
siting of a consolidated interim nuclear waste storage facility (, ), in the
momentary absence of, but with future hope for, a viable permanent disposal
solution for the nation's nuclear waste. Germany is in the process of
implementing legal directives to find a final disposal site for its nuclear
waste that meets high safety standards (BASE, 2022), while further developing its
strategy for public participation in the process (Weißpflug et al., 2022). The two national
contexts exhibit significant differences in political systems, historical
trajectories, institutional roles, and societal structure, as well as
attitudes towards nuclear energy and radioactive waste disposal strategies
(Richter et al., 2022; Saraç-Lesavre, 2021; Joppke, 1993; Blattmann et al., 2023). However, respective approaches to public participation in
managing and disposing of nuclear waste exhibit some commonalities in
motivations, strategies, and goals. What can policy audiences in both
countries learn from the respective national nuclear waste management
programs, creating the potential for participatory processes to be more
adaptive, responsive, and flexible to a diversity of values and social
actors? How do the findings from the comparative analysis of US and German
cases translate into policy-relevant lessons for other national waste
management programs engaging with the design of participatory processes and
nuclear waste governance frameworks? We offer a systematic comparative analysis of the foundations and rationale
of the US and German programs for nuclear waste disposal. We aim to
illuminate conceptual and empirical contrasts and comparisons between the
two nations' engagement of the public in the storage and disposal of spent
nuclear fuel, leading to nationally appropriate policy-relevant insights.
Categories for analysis include national disposal goals, historical
trajectories, institutional setup, and definition of partners in
participation processes. Through comparison and contrast of these categories
across the two nations, we allow for deeper insight into the conditions,
frameworks, and assumptions in which policy makers operate and can draw from
Hopkin (2010). This discussion will identify and compare relevant knowledge, narratives,
and legal frameworks in each nation's approach to incorporating public
participation in the process of searching for a site to store or dispose of
nuclear waste. We encourage reflection and learning through comparing and
contrasting core principles of these two cases, with the aim of maximizing
avenues of mutual learning towards responsible, safe, and democratic nuclear
waste management.